Jeff [doing a voice]:

Have you ever had one of those days, out slurping cola from below the surface of Mars when, out of nowhere, NASA comes and kidnaps your entire family? No? Ever wonder what it would be like?

Join disturbing google-eyed alien Mac as he product placements his shapely little booty around California, befriending a young disabled boy with a death wish and eventually having a sick dance party at a totally real McDonalds.

Was ET a little too mainstream for you? Real cinephiles know the best alien/child friendship adventure is Stewart Raffill’s Mac & Me.

[Intro song: “Twinkle Lights” by The Sonder Bombs, featuring a punky rock riff]

Erika:

Welcome to Invalid Culture, a podcast dedicated to excavating the strangest and most baffling representations of disability in popular culture. Unlike other podcasts that review of films you’ve probably heard of, Invalid Culture is all about the abyss of pop culture adjacent media that just never quite broke through because well, they’re just awful. I’m your host, Erika and as always, I’m joined today by my co-host Jeff.

Jeff:

How you doing Erika?

Erika:

Oh, I am good. I am so ready to get going on this one.

Jeff:

Are you regretting doing this podcast yet? It’s episode three. How are you feeling?

Erika:

Oh I am more committed than ever. And I mean that in all possible interpretations of the word.

Jeff:

So this is a very special episode of Invalid Culture because this film comes to us, not just from the realms of popular culture but also from Erika’s past. Erika, what can you tell us about your childhood and the film Mac and Me?

Erika:

All right. Well, I wasn’t aware, I think until you brought up the possibility of doing an episode on Mac and Me that people knew about this film, it’s one of those films that I associate with my childhood. I mean, I remember E.T. but Mac and Me was something, it was something else. I remember the purple box. I remember the V-shaped whistle amplification that the aliens do with their hands. I remember the windmills, there are windmills. And I think I live in a, I come from a geographic area in which windmills became very PO popular in the last few years. And as I saw those windmills come up, I was reminded of my childhood and this film, this film about an alien and that’s really all I had to go with. I remembered the windmills. I remembered the alien. I did not remember that the main character used a wheelchair.

Jeff:

So you wouldn’t say that this film inceptioned you into becoming a disability studies professor.

Erika:

I mean, I’m rethinking everything now. It is, it’s possible that actually my life path was altered by my childhood love for this film that I now understand is a bit of a cult classic

Jeff:

Divisive. We’ll, it’s a divisive film for sure. Lovers and haters both. The film we are going to be talking about today is of course the 1980s classic Mac and Me, if you want to know what the movie Mac and Me is about, basically watch the movie E.T. and then imagine if E.T. was placed in a microwave. And what came out was the movie Mac and Me. Mac and me essentially tells the story of a young boy moving from the rough and tumble world of Illinois to greener pastures or I guess desert pastors of California. Our main character, Eric arrives in California only to discover that an alien from another planet has arrived in this town.

Jeff:

They then become friends and go through some hi jinks. And eventually our alien friend Mac is reunited with his parents. All of course, under the watchful gaze of the government who is trying to capture this alien perhaps to send them back home. Is this text an immigration text? I would say yes, definitely it is because it ends with our alien friends being naturalized as American citizens at what is perhaps the strangest citizenship ceremony I have ever seen. Is that a pretty accurate description would you say of the film?

Erika:

Yeah. I mean, a few details here and there but we’re going to fill those in as we get going.

Jeff:

So why did we decide to do this film? I mean, obviously there’s a boy in a wheelchair but why this film?

Erika:

I mean, for me personally, it was really about revisiting my childhood and just the disbelief that this was a disability film.

Jeff:

This film also has some pop culture credentials, perhaps that goes beyond what we intended for Invalid Culture, we’re breaking the rules a little bit. You may actually recognize a scene from this film, even if you have not seen it because an actor by the name of Paul Rudd for years has been using an infamous scene from this film every time goes on Conan, let’s hear actually a quick little clip explaining what in the world is going on with Paul Rudd and Mac and Me.

Paul Rudd:

I never really imagined 20 years ago. That here we would be.

Conan:

Yeah. Well, someone obviously on the internet put together, they didn’t even do all of them but you can and see, I mean, you don’t age but you see me go from a, here’s Paul Rudd to like, just this rotting pumpkin head and you see it happen over a period of years and it’s absolutely stunning, it’s this crazy performance art that lasts forever.

Paull Rudd:

I just remember the very first time thinking it’s so artificial to come on and sell your wears and show a clip from your movie. And what if I just show a clip from another movie?

Conan:

Right, right.

Paul Rudd:

We’ve never talked about this really but I thought, what if I show a clip from this movie that I saw a long time ago, that is just really strange. And there’s one scene in particular but I was waffling because there is another movie that I was obsessed with at the time that was equally like, who was this made for? Called Baby Geniuses.

Conan:

Baby Geniuses. Does anyone know baby, oh okay-

Jeff:

So this film essentially is known for being bizarre, strange, over the top, ridiculous and has had this life that I think has been extended beyond the original release as essentially a joke for an absurd film. But as people find out, I think there’s more than perhaps meets the eye when it comes to representations of disability in this film. Perhaps disability is the only thing that’s not ridiculous in this film. So where does this film come from? Well, it was written and directed by Stewart Raffill and Steve Feke and Stewart Raffill you may recognize, he has done some movies. Things like Ice Pirates was one of his, also was a big animal tamer and Wrangler through many Hollywood films and then eventually got into the writing and then directing. As we watched this film, unlike other films on Invalid Culture, we decided to watch it with the commentary enabled. Most of the films we’ve watched don’t have commentary. This film, however, was released as a collector’s edition Blue-Ray. Yes, we watched this in 1080P as God intended. And we listened to the audio commentary and it was actually really informative.

Erika:

And everything that we learned here is verified in a thrillist.com article, so definitely know that this is legitimate information we are working with here. So the director Stewart Raffill, really begins the audio commentary by explaining that this film was created in a rush, I believe he said five weeks, five weeks in total. He talks about how they were developing the costumes for the alien while writing the script with actors already on payroll and were under direction to just get it done. Why the rush unclear. We also learned that the producer R.J. Louis had spent several years negotiating brand rights with McDonald’s. And so this film came about presumably at, the deal was passed, we went into production.

Erika:

A little more on why the deal was passed. So Louis had a history with the Ronald McDonald charity and actually wanted to create this film in order to raise funds for the charity, for the Ronald McDonald charity. And so something that you can’t help, but notice when watching the film, that there is some brand placement, product placement, like next level going on in this film, riding on the coattails of E.T. there’s some Reese’s Pieces,, here we’ve got Coke. We’ve got McDonald’s. We questioned whether maybe Porsche was involved, perhaps also the Quickie wheelchair brand, although unconfirmed on the latter couple. But really what we learned in this audio commentary right off the bat was that this film was created to raise money for the Ronald McDonald charity.

Jeff:

Yeah. And a lot of investment financially by McDonald’s to get this made. McDonald’s was actually quite involved in some ways with the production of this film. But on the other hand, as we learned on the audio commentary, McDonald’s didn’t actually seem to have a whole lot of say about what happened. And this wasn’t quite like other product placements where the brand comes in and says, “Well, we want to be represented in these ways.” With the duration of the speed at which it was produced, it sounds like they just got this money and made something because I would really wonder, I would love to know what did McDonald’s think about this film after it came out? Were they happy with their investment? I don’t exactly know but let’s talk more about the Ronald McDonald charity a little bit later because I have some theories about what might be happening but let’s instead look at some critical response because we are not the only ones who have opinions about this film. So Erika, what did some of the major critics have to say when Mac and Me was released in, I believe 1988.

Erika:

Well, let’s start with a Richard Harrington from the Washington Post who said.

Jeff [doing a voice]:

So why is it so hard to light this fiddle? Having that scene done much better by Spielberg doesn’t help of course.

Jeff:

Right. Fantastic. Fantastic. I think it was Richard Harrington as well that mentions just casually that RJ Louis, the producer of the film. It turns out that they were an account executive for an ad firm that handled McDonald’s. So RJ Louis had a past relationship as an adman for McDonald’s and Richard just wanted us to know, just throwing it out there. Now, what else did we find?

Erika:

Well, we’ve got Steven Ray from the Philadelphia Inquirer who says.

Jeff [doing a voice]:

Everything about Mac and Me not at least the fact that it is fairly well made and involving, smacks of crass calculation, the filmmakers even have the gold in the movie’s part and shock to announce a sequel.

Erika:

Yes, that’s right. This film ends with a still and a cartoon text for unknown reasons. Announcing what is it, see you soon?

Jeff:

We’ll be back.

Erika:

We’ll be back.

Jeff:

We’ll be back.

Erika:

Hey, didn’t another movie pick that up another time, that we’ll be back?

Jeff:

Yeah, I believe so. I’m still waiting for Mac and Me to be back, frankly.

Erika:

I have a pet theory that it’s coming.

Jeff:

If honestly, if any of our listeners are interested, we will start a GoFundMe and we will film Mac and Me two.

Erika:

Should we just start-

Jeff:

If you want it.

Erika:

On me.

Jeff:

If you want it, we will do it. I am fully admitted because apparently copyright doesn’t matter. Apparently you can just tell whatever stories you want, E.T. E.T. ish.

Erika:

So next we had Chris Dafoe from the Globe and Mail.

Jeff [doing a voice]:

While worse films have, no, don’t touch the heart of the general public. Mac and Me is not only crass, it’s boring and insulted to children’s intelligences.

Erika:

And I want to say, I took issue with this. Funny that we got crass again. But I just, I took issue with this a little bit because watching this film, this is actually a film that is almost entirely showcasing children. And I think children’s intelligence, specifically their autonomy. We hardly see, the adults in this film are secondary roles. This is a film that is led by children and an alien.

Jeff:

It really does seem to be more about children living as this agentic operators. And I think it really stood out to me in the commentary when they’re talking about how he realized that children want to see themselves on screen. I don’t feel like this movie is trying to trick children. I think it’s trying to be fun and funny. And I would argue that it fails miserably at doing that, 100% fails but I don’t think they’re trying to trick us. I don’t think.

Erika:

No, I don’t think so either. And I really, I think that’s a really astute observation about children wanting to see themselves represented and maybe not unrelated to the fact that we have here, our first disabled actor in a disabled role. Maybe this team, maybe a film production wasn’t their forte. It was just the medium.

Jeff:

Yeah. RJ Louis allegedly had always wanted to do a film starring a disabled actor playing themselves. And in that way, this film is perhaps actually quite progressive. I think one of my favorite critiques of this film, however, came from Juan Carlos Coto from the Miami Herald, who said, quote,

Jeff [doing a voice]:

His pace is quick and the numerous chase scenes made for good fun. For sheer thrills, Mac beats Pippy and Peewee claws down.

Erika:

Oh, sorry. Just for clarification. Do we know who or what Pippy and Peewee are?

Jeff:

This is definitely referencing Peewee, Herman and Pippi Longstocking. And I would imagine anyone listening to this who have seen either of those films is deeply concerned about the mental state of Juan Carlos Coto. I don’t know how anyone can argue that this horrifying monstrosity of an alien is better than Pippi Longstocking or Peewee Herman.

Erika:

I mean, he might be wrong. He might be, we could debate that but I do think he’s probably nailed the class, the class as that belongs in.

Jeff:

Yeah, that’s actually a good point. Maybe this actually maybe does make more sense alongside a Pippi Longstocking or a Peewee Herman. That actually might be a better place to put it. Whereas E.T. is like, oh, I was about to say high film and I apologize for that. But I mean, Spielberg is in a completely different film production category, I would argue. That maybe makes some sense but the fact that it beats it claws down, Juan Carlos Coto what did they have on you? Did they have your family?

Erika:

Does Juan Carlos Coto also work for McDonald’s?

Jeff:

Everyone works for McDonald’s. But of course, film critics are not the only ones that have important opinions. In fact, some of the best opinions about movies in my humblest of opinions can be found within the Amazon Review categories. So we have curated some of our favorite Amazon Reviews of Mac and Me. And we start with a great one. This one comes to us from Sheldon five stars titled. Okay. And the text is okay. Sheldon believes, eh it’s okay. Five stars.

Erika:

Yes, we’ll give it five stars.

Jeff:

Five stars, it’s okay.

Erika:

So, S.A. Hansen, another five star titled a little more descriptively, Look for the Good, Not a Bad, with the text, I see nearly everyone dislikes this film. Everyone either gives it one or no stars. Video movie guide 2000 gave it the Turkey. After I got it, I read the positive and negative reviews. And now I’m glad I was able to enjoy it. Yes, it is a pale clone of E.T. but that is what makes it all the more better. Nothing is better or than E.T. but this is right next to it. Perhaps there won’t be a sequel because of how poorly it did with the box office but it definitely didn’t deserve worst picture.

Jeff:

I love that they say maybe a sequel won’t happen 30 years after this was released. So this is a good one. I like this one for a lot of reasons. This is from our friend, Brian. Five stars titled Inter Galactic Good Times ellipses. The text is, quote, Mac and Me is one of Hollywood’s most overlooked pieces of classic science fiction. Fun for the whole family Mac and Me will take your heart from the introduction of the film’s protagonist and cute little extraterrestrial. Don’t jump to any conclusions. This is no E.T. knockoff. Mac has a mind of his own. After a fabulously choreographed scene at McDonald’s Mac and his handicap friend bracket Me bracket, get into some hefty trouble with the law. Excellent. Pyrotechnics and special effects, a true classic.

Erika:

Is it possible that this review was written on Amazon in 1989?

Jeff:

I think there was like, this was probably shouted out on a CB radio when the film came out and this has been captured and curated for us here. I love how it equal parts, defends the movie and then it plays up other parts and then minimizes others. So for instance, I love the implication that unlike E.T. Mac is an agentic free thinker, E.T. is apparently a conformist, a slave to the system, unlike Mac who thinks for himself.

Erika:

Okay. But Brian also claims that it’s cute and I’m not sure I can agree with that.

Jeff:

That is also an extreme, an extreme, I mean the first time I saw this film, I was old, I was an adult and I was worried about nightmares after I saw this for the first time, the alien to me is terrifying. All of them are very disturbing. I would argue.

Erika:

It is not, I would not cute. And cuddly is not the vibe I get from Mac, which I think Mac is actually said to be an abbreviation for or an acronym for mysterious alien creature.

Jeff:

I think this was a rip on Alf perhaps.

Erika:

Oh, I see it.

Jeff:

I believe, I believe. I also love the statement that quote, they get into, quote, hefty trouble with the law, which is of course an abbreviation for Eric will be shot by the police by the end of this movie, he’ll be shot and killed by a police officer.

Erika:

Depending on which country you watch the film in.

Jeff:

Correct. We’ll talk about that more in a moment.

Erika:

All right. Up next, we’ve got Jason Nickert five stars titled, Jay’s Review on a Childhood Classic. See Jay and I were coming from the same place. So Jay had to say, this movie was was my all time favorite movie when I was growing up, from the first time I watched it on the old TMN movie network. This movie is a great movie with a lot fun attached to it. It was and always will be a cult classic to me. It helped me grow up and it’s tremendous grasp of a boy who falls in love for a being greater than man and shows a compassion that is lacking our day and age. I rate this movie an easy 10 but if, since I can only go to five, I will have to settle for that.

Jeff:

There is a lot to unpack here. Is this a romance movie?

Erika:

I mean, that was not my initial read but-

Jeff:

Do Mac and Eric hook up?

Erika:

I mean, no, we definitely don’t see that happen. I did not have the sense that it happened either. I mean maybe worthy of mentioned, there is a certain, there is a caring relationship, certainly that develops between them.

Jeff:

Definitely.

Erika:

I think we see them both extend care and support towards each other.

Jeff:

If you were watching What’s Eating Gilbert Grape, would you say that he fell in love with Gilbert Grape?

Erika:

No, no. This-

Jeff:

It’s the falls in love that’s very strange to me.

Erika:

Yep. Yep. I mean, what is love?

Jeff:

I also want to know, is Mac genuinely a being greater than man?

Erika:

See, yeah. I mean, I was onboard with most of this review. But that one I’m not so sure about. Certainly portrayed as an other. An other things. Yep. Greater. I mean, yeah. I don’t know about that.

Jeff:

And so his powers are essentially, he’s able to get sucked into things. He essentially has a completely malleable body. He can fit into very small spaces.

Erika:

He doesn’t rely on water.

Jeff:

Right, he lives on Coca-Cola. I don’t know if that makes him better, I’m not sure. We also got a five star review from Kim. This one was titled, Great Movie. And it says quote, I thought it was a good movie. Did you know that the kid in the wheelchair wasn’t just acting in the wheelchair? That was actually his, he has spina bifida and he did all his own stunts, like the water scene where he falls off the cliff. Now this is a good review. I brought this quote on the show because it straight up lies to us in its justification of the film, the actor does have spina bifida. The actor was using his own wheelchair. However, he did not do almost any of the stunts, including he did not do the stunt where he falls off a cliff and into the water. That was definitely not him. And it has stated repeatedly in the commentary of the film, that they were very afraid of killing this child throughout the film. They were really worried that they were going to kill him with the stunts. And that’s why they used stunt doubles. It sounds like very heavily. So Kim, the one thing you tried to sell us on, it wasn’t true

Erika:

Last up. And this is probably my favorite and I would say the most accurate of all of the reviews. So Dylan Kelly gave us a very unforgiving one star review titled, “Truly terrible” with the slightly more generous text, “God, awful, loved every minute.” So I’m just going to say, I think that actually pretty well sums it up for me. How about you, Jeff?

Jeff:

It’s so perfect.

Erika:

So I think we, we pretty much sum up the reviews there. Shall we get into a little bit of a deeper analysis of what happened here?

[Musical Interlude: “Body Terror Song” by AJJ, singing “I’m so sorry that you have to have a body, so very sorry that you have to have a body, oh yeah” over an upbeat piano and acoustic guitar]

Erika:

All right. So let’s get started some general impressions on the film. I mean, clearly we are looking at a low budget. Well, I think if we look at the numbers, it wasn’t exactly a low.

Jeff:

It was not a low budget film. There was a lot of money, but it looks like a straight to DVD film.

Erika:

Yeah. Yeah. So we’ve got what looks like a low budget film. I think that what I want to say first and foremost is I am, I was, I remain just floored at what an excellent disability representation this is. I don’t think we started this film knowing that we were looking at an actual disabled actor. I believe that this was something that we started to pick up on as we watched. Did you know going in?

Jeff:

I fully expected that this thing was going to be a gong show. I figured that this was going to be an absolute, like just paint by color or paint by number just all the worst stuff. And as we were watching this film, I had this dark sneaking suspicion that this actually might be one of the best representations of disability that we’re going to see. It might be a completely unwatchable movie, but it actually may have gotten disability right. And that’s shocking, considered all of the other problems within this film.

Erika:

Right. And so, I mean watching this, especially after the last couple of films that we really, really, I think railed for their unfortunate acting disability. It was very immediately evident that the actor was not sort of imagining disability and acting this. What an able bodied actor might imagine Spina bifida or, I mean, very unique among this film. I don’t think that his diagnosis is ever mentioned. I don’t think except for one incident we’ll get back to. He’s really not medicalized. There’s no dwelling on his leaky body. There are no kind of awkward and inconsistent arm, hand-leg movements. It’s just a kid using a chair and that’s not even, I mean, it’s not even that. It’s just a kid who happens to be using a chair. It’s never the focus. It’s never the focal point. And that is just, that is rare.

Jeff:

Yeah. I don’t know how they got this, so right. Considering everything else, like I think it is important for us to clarify here. This film is terrible. It is a terrible film, but somehow within this pile of excrement, this is like beautiful flower of representation emerged, and that is shocking.

Erika:

Yeah. I mean, I think you throughout the hypothesis that, because the film was strewed together so quickly, maybe they just didn’t have time to overthink the disability representation.

Jeff:

I think that might be it. I feel like they didn’t even think about disability because they didn’t have time. Like we hear in the commentary that at times they were literally like right and stuff. And then like looking for, see places to film the next scene and finding these locations like the night before, and then just like go in there the next day to shoot the scene. I wonder if, when you don’t have a time to think about the story and you’re literally just shooting one scene after another, then it just, it becomes like a non-factor. They were like, “Well, we don’t have the time or the capacity to actually engage with any of this stuff, because we’re trying to film a movie in like a month and a half.” And I think a lot of the stuff in this film is reflective of that philosophy.

Jeff:

It’s like, well, we’re not going to think of like an original plot line. We don’t have time for that. So we’re just going to take parts of ET and then put it in there. We’re going to take parts of Back to the Future and we’re going to put it in there. We’re basically just going to be like, “Oh, do I, Spielberg, we’re going to take a bunch of stuff from his films. We’re going to jam it together. And we’re just going to get this thing out the door. That’s what our plan is.

Erika:

Well, and that really squares with the intent for this film to essentially raise money for a charity. It wasn’t about reinventing cinema. It was about how do we use the medium to meet our end. And I think, two things related to that, that I think sort of played out. We heard on the commentary, the directors say, “We really had to take Jade’s lead because we imagined a scene would go one way. And then we got there and Jade sort of told us it needed to go another way.” And so that we saw in another film, I think it was Miracle in Lane 2 that had an onsite wheelchair consultant.

Jeff:

Yes.

Erika:

And so, I mean the director of this film and the commentary acknowledged how much they learned about disability and just sort of the mundaneness of living with disability, through working with Jade on the film.

Jeff:

Now, I’m sorry. Can we talk about the cliff scene? I think we need to talk about it. It is the elephant in the room for those of you who have not seen the film yet, Eric has decided it is finally time to capture this alien. He’s been sort of pursuing it. There’s weird things happening in his house and he follows the alien out of his house, ends up on a cliff, which his wheelchair then runs down. He tries to put on the brakes, the brakes snap off and his wheelchair then launches off the cliff. He falls for a long time into this water below at which point, typically he is to drown. And it is at this point that Mac finally reveals himself, swims out into the water and somehow rescues this man or child, pulls him to the shore. The next time we will see Eric, he’s now in his bedroom being consulted by doctors. What stood out for you in the cliff scene? Erika?

Erika:

I mean, there’s the shock, certainly. Like, who thought to launch the wheelchair kid off a cliff? Why was that? Why? Where did that come from?

Jeff:

The stakes have never been higher.

Erika:

Right. I mean, in one sense it seemed kind of realistic because I don’t think we’ve mentioned that the family had just moved into a new home. So, a kid out exploring it’s not unrealistic. It’s not that sort of trope that we’re used to seeing where a blind character sort of feeling around for things in their own home that they most likely know where to find them. Right. It’s not that kind of thing. It’s not unrealistic that he would slip down. I don’t know what to call it. A cliff.

Jeff:

Ravine, cliff side. Yeah.

Erika:

And lose control. Did that seem realistic to you?

Jeff:

Yes and no. The way he reacted to it is what actually got me. And it’s interesting because as we found, unlike what Kim, the liar would try and tell us. Jade, the actor had nothing really to do with this. It was a stunt double that was used, which I think is also incredible because I believe it looks pretty obvious that there is not a person in this wheelchair. Allegedly, it is a person. I am not super convinced on that. But one thing that I think that doesn’t speak to the reality of manual wheelchairs, I don’t know many people that go to the brakes to try and stop themselves from moving. But the brakes, when I was in a manual wheelchair, those breaks are rickety. Like they don’t really work and it’s really more so for like, when you’re doing a transfer, when you’re sitting still, right.

Jeff:

You’re like, I’ve come to a stop and I’m going to put this on so that I don’t roll down a gradual incline. When I was in a manual wheelchair, the gut instinct was, you just grab the wheels, you just full on, grab the wheel with your hands. And at the time, if you’re going at the speed that your brake will snap off, you are well beyond the point I think of stopping the chair. And I think you would just bail out. I think you would just jump out of the chair. So I think that was a little bit obviously kind of ridiculous. And it’s interesting that in the scene that doesn’t use Eric, we see kind of a different use of the wheelchair that maybe doesn’t exactly resonate. I really am surprised that they basically tried to kill him off this early in the movie. That was like a full blown. He almost died.

Erika:

Yeah. I mean he almost died and the alien quickly came to his rescue. So I mean, that’s interesting. That’s an interesting way to cue our first real meeting with the alien. Is there something to that?

Jeff:

I wonder too, like how did the alien know that he was drowning? How does this child alien from a different planet that is ostensibly a desert in which they use straws to suck Coke out of. How was the alien like, “Oh, he’s drowning. He breathes air. I need to get down in there and pull him out.” I also want to know, after the scene is done. So once he hits the water, the actor is separated from the wheelchair. And so when he is saved, he’s like dragged to the side of the water by Mac, which again, I just want to point out as well. We do see Jade with his arms exposed, in this film. And this kid was ripped because he was like borderline Paralympian.

Jeff:

He was doing like wheelchair races at the time. I have a hard time imagining that he didn’t have the physical capacity to swim, but anyways, we see him get pulled out of the water. The next time we see him, he’s in his bed, but his wheelchair is there who got his wheelchair from the bottom of the lake. Did Mac go back? Cause after he pushes the boy to the side of the water. He then goes back underwater, like Mac goes back down. Is he going down to get the wheelchair? And how is he like, this is a $6000 or $7,000 wheelchair. I need to go get that for this kid.

Erika:

The curious thing is that we see Eric flailing in the water in a way that suggests there is not a chair pulling him under the water, but then we see him lifted out of water on the chair. But yeah, the question remains. How did he get from the bottom of this valley? Back up to his home on the cliff?

Jeff:

Yeah. There’s fire. There’s fire people there. There are multiple fire trucks and multiple cop cars. And I feel like that is also a real over response to a kid who was at center. He was fine. There’s no indication that this child suffered any sort of injury from what he definitely should have probably died from.

Erika:

And see, this is where we see some good representation that I don’t think we can probably credit to Eric. Right. Because decisions were made around Eric. With Eric slash actor Jade. Decisions were made not to sort of portray his helplessness or his neediness by showing anyone, carrying him or dragging him or however it was that he got out of this situation that wasn’t shown. We didn’t sort of dwell on his fragility, this thing happened. And he was so fragile already that he just crumbled to pieces. Not at all. I mean, we did see the next scene. We do see him next in bed, but other than that, we don’t go. Those tropes weren’t sort of milked the way that we’ve seen them in other films.

Jeff:

Also, can we talk about their van? Because I do not understand how Eric, the character Eric. How he is put inside this Volkswagen van. I don’t understand what the heck is going on. Okay. So we see throughout the film, Eric is presented in several different configurations within this old school Volkswagen van. We see one scene in which his older brother, Michael grabs his wheelchair and carries the wheelchair and Eric out of the van. So the there’s not like a ramp or a power lift or anything.

Jeff:

There don’t appear to be like tie down straps. Sometimes he is basically between the front seats. Other times, he’s way in the back of his fan. He is like all over the place. And it feels like we hear on a commentary that there was a whole lot of drama around filming within the van. And the problem was not Eric himself. It was that they needed a bunch of puppeteers, also in the van with all the film crew and all the film equipment. And that there just wasn’t enough room. And so I think Eric was just getting sort of pushed around into different spots of the van in order to make it fit. But the van stuff was wild to me because there was just no consistency in how this boy was transported.

Erika:

Yeah. So I looked into this because I was curious. How is the wheel chair getting into the van for one? And actually it turns out that the, as in character, Eric even explains to someone else. The question comes up, “Well, how do you get in the car?” And they say, “Oh, well, I can just hop in my wheelchair and sit in the back.” So he explains that himself, their van curiously not have a ramp or a lift of any sort on it. And we never see him navigating that. That the timing, the actual year, this film was 1988. Yeah. Looking into it, it turns out it was sort of in the mid seventies, that the converted van was first sort of being explored. And I think it was 87 or 88, actually. That vans really started to be adaptive. So its very likely that they wouldn’t have actually had any concept of an adapted van. It’s possible that someone in the production might have seen one or known something about them, but it might actually be that we were just in a sort of in an era of makeshift accessibility for automobiles.

Jeff:

It’s fascinating because in some ways, again, perhaps not even intentionally, this movie made the right choice because I think often when disabled characters are brought in, there’s this weird pressure, like they’re trying to figure out like, “Well, how would someone in a wheelchair use a van?” And then, well, they didn’t have the internet really in 1988, but they would’ve like called and then like, “Well, what’s up there.” And what you end up finding is that often people with disabilities in films are using the top of the line equipment that no one else actually has access to like different drummer. They’re using a piss tube, which no one else had access to that technology nor have they ever gotten access to it. And, so it’s interesting because again, by perhaps not even intentionally, I think they probably did show the reality of usable wheelchair where they’re like, “Ah, let’s just get this Volkswagen bus thing and take out the middle seat and we’ll just sort of jam the chair in there.” Because that’s kind of what families were doing at the time.

Erika:

Mac and Me nails it once again.

Jeff:

Now, while there were lots of good things, I think in this film. There were some interesting tropes that we noticed. Things that we see a lot in disability film. One of the tropes, I don’t have a lot to say about it, but I do want to fly that right off the bat. Is that similar to Miracle in Lane 2. Within this film, Eric’s brother Michael, we go into his room at one point and discover that he has tons of sport medals. And so once again, we have this idea of the disabled child and there’s simple and being hyper performative that Michael is apparently very physically successful. I don’t believe we really see any metals in Eric’s room. It didn’t stand out anyway. He mostly had toys.

Erika:

Well, and what’s interesting about that. We learned on the commentary that Jade was actually a high performing athlete.

Jeff:

Yes.

Erika:

This was very much one of those gifts from the imagination of the writers. Not from reality.

Jeff:

It’s funny too, because sport is always in the background of this film, but never actually does become in the center within both of the boys’ bedrooms. We see this cornucopia of Chicago Sports Team references, there’s posters to the Chicago Bears. There’s posters of the Cubbies. There’s all this sort of reference to Chicago sports in the infamous dance scene in the McDonald’s. There are people in full blown football uniforms, but only like two or three of them, not a team, just like a couple of guys going to McDonald’s after the game. Why is that?

Erika:

I mean, is that just a, is it an eighties sort of stereotype of the culture at the time? I think in the dance scene, we see, there are street performers, there are the athletes, there are, I think some ballet dancers?

Jeff:

There’s ballerinas. I think it maybe, it’s like, I wonder if this was a way of signifying, like reminding us that they also are fish out of water. Like the alien, obviously Mac is a fish out of water, but so too is Eric and Michael because they’re from Chicago and they’re not from California. And that division of Illinois and Chicago and California being different places with different ideas about the world is something that comes up a couple times. Like Erica and Michael are also kind of immigrants into this California world. And so I wonder if the sports teams were just like an easy way to be like, “Don’t forget, they’re not from California.”

Erika:

I want to come back to this one actually, but let’s go first to the other trope. I think we saw, even though briefly was why Eric was not injured by his fall off the cliff. Why do we next frame see him in bed with a doctor?

Jeff:

I love it. This is such a fascinating trope to me that when characters are hurt or sick, we symbolize it by putting them in bed. I mean, this kid just fell off a cliff and into the water. Is his first instinct to be like, “I should go lay down.” Or is it more this iconic image of the doctor at the bedside, caring for the patient. It

Erika:

It called to mind for me, the Frankie Muniz character in Miracle in Lane 2. How he was always about to burst. Right. 911 was on speed dial because three clicks was too many. You had to get medical help there so quickly. There’s almost some remnant of that in the doctor, get the doctor here quick. Most kids, we do, we kind of monitor the mob on the head and see if it goes down before we call the doctor. But this is sort of maybe some glimmer of that because disability is present. Medicine is always just off scene.

Jeff:

I wonder if this explains the overreaction from EMT as well. At this idea that he wasn’t just hurt. It was a wheelchair kid that fell off a cliff, not just any kid. And so you need multiple police cars, you need fire. You’re going to have the doctor’s going to visit at home. And the doctor essentially gives him like a clean bill of health. And he just, all is he does is to prescribes him a sedative. Is that how all doctors operated in the 1980s?

Erika:

We might need to bring that back if I’m being honest.

Jeff:

Right. Just prescribed sedatives. Just opiate of the masses, maybe literal opium. I think this was a really like, it’s such a cliché. And I think it’s funny in watching this film from the 1980s and looking at where American healthcare is now. I think the idea of a general practitioner coming to your bedside, that period of healthcare in America is dead. But there was no reference to HMOs who was going to pay for this medical care. There was no reference to paying for the fix on his wheelchair or any. There was no delay, even in repairing the wheelchair. It was just like, “Well, of course we care for people when they’re sick or hurt. Because that’s what our culture believes in. That actually felt really foreign watching this again in 2021.

Erika:

Yeah. Is that a relic? Is it a fantasy?

Jeff:

That’s a good question. Maybe somewhere in the middle. I think that there was maybe this desire to believe of America as the best. This movie is very much about America, right? It’s about America being the best at sort of everything. And so I think similarly, this idea that we provide the best healthcare, that I think was really important back in the ’80s in a way that now I think America, for whatever reason, has now been like, “Well, whatever, we might have great healthcare, and maybe we don’t, but you got to pay. One way or another you’re going to pay.”

Erika:

Which ironically is also the genesis of the film, right? Was that-

Jeff:

Right. Charity.

Erika:

Funding a charity. So yeah, I was going to ask, I don’t really know the historical evolution of healthcare in America from the bedside doctor to the hospital industrial complex, but we’re certainly looking at a film that was created to fund a charity that helps families of children getting medical care.

Jeff:

Now I want to flag this because we’ll come back to it again. But, I do want to point out why did he not end up in a Ronald McDonald House after this? That seems like such a clear synergy because the intention was to fund Ronald McDonald Houses.

Erika:

The thing about this film is that it is not actually a film about disability. It’s a film about all America, right? It’s a film about another, but it’s not the disabled other, despite there being a disabled character, it’s really about the alien other. Who, I think we already read into it, some kind of a, immigration text before we heard the director call it an immigration text.

Jeff:

Yes, absolutely. That is confirmed.

Erika:

Yeah. That was just, I think an unexpected trope for a disability movie that’s maybe not really a disability movie at all.

Jeff:

I think in that vein, I’d like to unpack a little bit here. This idea of disability and the other. So as we saw in both of the previous movies, so in Miracle in Lane 2 and in Different Drummer, there’s this idea that disability is bound to, or drawn to the other. In this film, it is a disabled character who gets bound to an alien. So, did Mark choose Eric, or was Eric determined to befriend the alien because of his other status?

Erika:

It’s a really good question. Literally what we see, there’s sort of this big commotion early in the movie. It’s a car crash and the alien is present and the alien and is sort of meandering around the car crash. And what we next see is Eric at home and the alien has hitched a ride or followed them home, right. So, literally what we see is that the alien chose Eric.

Jeff:

Yeah. Not just chose the car. There were many other cars. I will say, in that car crash, there was a man who was straight up on fire during that scene. This movie, the stakes have never been higher. People were on fire, in this multi-car pile up caused by the alien. But he does, he looks in the middle, he jumps in. And I think similarly, Eric and his family do not seem to be phased really, at all. That there is now this terrifying alien wandering around and destroying their house.

Erika:

Destroying their house, being pursued by the FBI. Right? They’ve got cars, they’ve got on foot officers, they are chasing this alien down.

Jeff:

There’s a brief moment of doubt. So, at first his family is like, no there is no alien. And then they’re like, oh shoot, there is an alien. Okay, well now there’s an alien. I almost wonder if this is, this notion that difference begets difference. That because they are living this different life with a son that has a disability, they’re just suddenly kind of more accepting of difference as well. They’re like, oh we need to see the value in everyone. Even if they look different or behave different or act different. They’re more accepting of that difference. And so at no point are they like, whoa, there are other intelligent species in this world that live on different planets.

Erika:

Yeah. I think the fascinating part of this for me is that, I’m not convinced that this was an intentional part of the writing of the film. I don’t think that our friend who essentially bragged about launching the wheelchair off the cliff and the genius of that writing, I don’t think that that same person wrote this deep sort of trope around the other and the openness that living with around disability might beget. I think that this is really one of those special moments where we get a very kind of subconscious trope written into the film and where this sort of bonding between others or openness compassion to others because of an othered existence. But something else that I think I felt in this dynamic was that, because disability was being portrayed as so just mundane, it was almost, the otherness of disability was really overshadowed by the otherness of the alien.

Erika:

And almost not even, overshadowed in a sense, but also sort of humanized. I think in a lot of the films that we might consider, whether they’re our preferred offbeat representations or the mainstream representations, we see disability treated as its own. It is sort of the object that carries the film. It’s the object that is analyzed and picked apart in the film. And disability wasn’t objectified in that way here. And because Mark is clearly not human, it almost creates, it almost bolsters the humanity of the disabled character.

Jeff:

Yeah. Mark becomes the obvious other, and also the problem to be solved. Which then allows Erin to A, not be a problem. And B, to be actually in closer proximity to the other human characters, and therefore marked as a human character.

Erika:

Yeah. I don’t know if this is a stretch to observe, but noticing that Eric cares for Mark in a, almost parental, in a kind of parental custodial kind of way.

Jeff:

Motherly.

Erika:

Yeah. Right.

Jeff:

Motherly way.

Erika:

Himself, sort of leaned over at the bedside, holding up his head and feeding him the Coca-Cola that he needs to survive.

Jeff:

Yeah. I was disturbed by that scene. I was waiting for the breastfeeding to happen in that moment. He’s creative with his head, and it’s like, “Have some bitty my friend.”

Erika:

Maybe we’re really getting deep into the subconscious here.

Jeff:

Is Eric Mark’s mother. An interesting question. But I honestly do not know of many other films in which the disabled character is a provider of care. The one that pops into my mind immediately, and I hate that I’m going to say this, would be I Am Sam. There is, it’s a two-way care relationship, but he does provide care for his daughter. But Eric is definitely a provider of care, throughout this film, and also the advocate. He is literally the voice for Mark.

Erika:

Who doesn’t speak just as… If you haven’t gotten around to watching the film yet Mark does not communicate using verbal language.

Jeff:

No. And also does communicate in extremely abstract hints. So for instance, what he wants to say, my family is by the windmills, he puts a flower in a straw. And that moment, when Eric is like, oh, the windmills. That’s what he is referring to. I’m like, I would’ve never made that connection. Mark would’ve never reconnected with his family, if I was Eric.

Erika:

Is that giving Eric a bit of that sort of superhuman? Is he then, we often see that either lesser or greater than human. Is…

Jeff:

She seems to have some sort of insight, but again, I wonder if that is not the nature that Eric has a unique ability. And I don’t even necessarily think it’s an idea that Mark maybe has a telepathic ability. So he’s sort of actually putting the ideas maybe into Eric. I don’t think that’s what’s happening either. I think they were like, we got to get this in done in 90 minutes. So, we’re just going to throw the stuff out there and Eric will just figure it out, and it’ll be fine.

Erika:

It’s a movie by and for the children.

Jeff:

Also, if you are an American, you should be ashamed of your government in this film. Because, the fact that they’re not able to capture these aliens is a true indictment about the incompetence of law enforcement and not the only indictment of law enforcement within this film.

Erika:

Yeah. So, our ending scene. You’ve already kind of thrown out the spoiler that our protagonist is shot at, at least by the police. So we have the, Mark is reunited with his parents and sibling. They enter a grocery store and essentially, it all just breaks loose at that point. The police are there, presumably they’ve been called to deal with the aliens in the supermarket. How does the fire start?

Jeff:

From the shooting. Cause it’s a gas station.

Erika:

And the gas station. Okay. Okay. Yeah. So, we have not only a store full of people, but we have Eric rushing in to try and help them while the police continue to shoot at the aliens, and now at Eric. We learn that in an alternate ending, not the one that we see, Eric is actually shot by police. Which is of course leading up to his being brought back to life by the aliens, how? Something that looks a bit like the seance that we practiced in, early ’90s. Did it come from, when was the craft made? Anyway, clearly another precious time capsule. But yeah, the cops are just shooting. They shoot the kids. In our American version, it’s been edited so that we don’t actually see that happen. We see sort of Eric Rush to save his friends and the explosion, and he’s sort of presumably affected by the explosion. But, the police were indeed shooting openly at the aliens and everyone else in the vicinity who happened to be at a grocery store slash gas bar.

Jeff:

My favorite part, I think about… So number one, if you have not watched The International, you could find it on YouTube. You can straight up watch the police shoot and kill a disabled child, which is a bold stance for this film to take. Hilarious. But I love, so afterwards Eric’s mother is brought to the scene, and she’s rushing and there’s a police officer. And he is like, “One of the kids was shot.” And she’s like, “Which one?” Which I think is also hilarious thing. And she’s not necessarily equally concerned based on what child has been gunned down. She’s like, well, I love my one son more than the other. And she’s like, “Which one?” And the cop is like, “I don’t know, but he uses a wheelchair.” And then there’s like, “Oh no Eric.” And she runs over and then this sort of scene happens.

Jeff:

It’s an interesting moment because, I think there’s some authenticity here. Where I think if a woman was like, “Oh, who got hurt?” And the police were like, “Well, I don’t know his name.” I don’t think they’d be like, “Oh, I don’t know. He was wearing a Patagonia jacket. Or like, “Oh, he had blonde hair.” The wheelchair is definitely going to be the defining moment. And in fact this is like the only time really, one of the rare times that he is defined by his disability. But I think it was a really authentic moment. I think that’s exactly what would happen. I fully agree. It’s like, “Oh, shoot, we killed the wheelchair one.”

Erika:

Nevermind that the mom was helicoptered in when they didn’t even know who had been shot.

Jeff:

Yeah. They knew she was related in some way. I don’t know where this helicopter got her from, I guess maybe, the seers see. So, the mom was at seers. And they have a little run through at seers, but I think that was aways earlier. So, I don’t know that they necessarily would’ve known that they were connected. But the mom meant to be there, and the child is saved. And I hate that. I wanted this movie to have the courage to kill the boy in a wheelchair.

Erika:

I just want to say, Different Drummers. We also had a death and a revival.

Jeff:

Yeah. The return. Yeah. Now that was more of a biblical revival, but the disabled kid comes back. And I think we all knew it was going to happen. I think the movie was really forecasting it.

Erika:

But I think the better question really is, and you’ve already posed this, why? Why? Why did he not end up in a Ronald McDonald House?

Jeff:

Well, that’s the thing. There are multiple times in which this child has almost died, and the film is supposedly to the benefit of, I’m assuming Ronald McDonalds House. They refer to it as the Ronald McDonald Charity, which, they do other things, but Ronald McDonald House is the main thing, as far as I understand. And yet they don’t do it. However, what we do see is that McDonald’s is the place to rock. What the heck is happening in this organized dance scene?

Erika:

Okay. Another point of great pride for the director, in the commentary. This dancing, and I thought let’s make it a musical. And so we made it a musical, what and why? I think, when we watched the movie the first time without the commentary, that was really the moment that, is this a film or is this a really drawn out commercial for McDonald’s?

Jeff:

That McDonald’s, is like exactly what a marketer wants you to think. It is like to go to a McDonald’s. The place is pumping, bopping, the jams are on, there’s a dance battle happening in the parking lot.

Erika:

So, this is another one of those, I think culturally relevant throwbacks. And maybe this is more relevant to my own childhood where I grew up, we had a McDonald’s caboose. Were those universal, or did we just happen to have one?

Jeff:

I think it was really specific. I think they did different things at most of the McDonald’s. So, like some of them had the play house type things. My McDonald’s in Port Elgin had a terrifying, torture chamber in the basement. There was a basement and it was horrifying and it smelled really bad. I went to one birthday there, and I vowed that I would never return to this dim lit, no window. What can only be described as BDSM torture chamber.

Erika:

Okay. This is fascinating. Maybe the topic for an entirely different podcast that is not our own. But in Chatham where I grew up, we had a caboose and it was the place to have your McDonald’s birthday party. So, I think yeah, maybe that was it. Maybe that was what the McDonald’s execs wanted. Was, we just, you do what you want with the film, we need to push the McDonald’s birthday party as the place to be in the late ’80s, early ’90s, for a birthday party.

Jeff:

It is the coolest place. And it’s a place where the party never ends. The population within this McDonald’s is radically diverse, diverse in age, diverse in ethnicity, diverse in preferences and interests. There are, like you said earlier, ballerinas, there’s football players, there’s old people, there’s young people, there’s basically, I think every race is represented in this McDonald. And everyone’s just intermixed. Ronald McDonald is literally there making puppets and balloons for people. The people working at the front are happy and clapping. A dance sequence breaks out. This place is so much fun. The most fun. At no point, do they ever reflect the feces covered bathrooms, or the seats that were literally designed so that you couldn’t sit in them very long, so that you got the heck out of the McDonald’s, so they could bring in the next feeder to sell their burgers to. It is… And the plants, this McDonald’s is full of lush greenery. And I definitely do not remember there being any sort of plant in a McDonald’s that I ever visited.

Erika:

I think this answers our earlier question. That was, is this a relic or a fantasy? Clearly-

Jeff:

It is 100% a fantasy.

Erika:

A fantasy,

Jeff:

A big time fantasy. And one thing that I’m kind of here for, can you imagine if there was a place where you could go to where all creeds and religions and ages are all just together, dancing and partying and celebrating all the time, and there’s a clown there who will make you things. I would go there.

Erika:

Are you not describing Disneyland?

Jeff:

Actually wouldn’t go there. I… (laugh) Disney, the mouse is furious that they didn’t get in on the Mac and Me. That’d be a great theme park there, right? Come to this, fantasy McDonald’s where the party never stops. The other thing I will say, if you want to see some child actors dancing their bloody hearts out, this is the scene for you. The intensity with which these people are dancing, it is like Toddlers and Tiaras, decades before it happens.

Erika:

And, fun fact, Jennifer Anderson is in this scene.

Jeff:

I would argue without Mark and me, Friends never happens.

Erika:

Yep.

Jeff:

So, if you’re looking for a place to go where fun is happening all the time, it is time for you to go to, the Rock ‘n’ Roll McDonald’s.

[Music Interlude: “Rock ‘n Roll McDonal’s by Wesley Willis, auto-tuned singing “Rock ‘n’ Roll McDonald’s. Rock ‘n’ Roll McDonald’s. Rock ‘n’ Roll McDonald’s” over a synth beat] 

Erika:

All right. So, as we do, we have put this film through the ringer, but, some closing thoughts. To be fair, what were some things that you thought the film did well?

Jeff:

Full bloody marks, for them, casting an actor with a disability and actually listening to them actually embodying some of that advice, but maybe there were consequences to that.

Erika:

Well, I think what you’re sort of teetering on saying, something that they did well, really worked to their disadvantage. Because they wanted this movie to raise money, right? But it did not raise money. And I don’t think it’s a coincidence that they did not. They did not produce a stereotypical tugging at your heartstrings, trope, and that’s where they were going to get the money. So, I think, what the film did really well, ultimately shot them in the foot.

Jeff:

Absolutely. I wonder if they had leaned more into the disability tropes, if they may have gotten a bit more slack. I think one thing that’s fascinating about the commentary about this film and some of the things that the directors have talked about is the, one of the director and writer, is on record basically saying that, he’s like, “We cast a disabled kid in this film. I can’t believe people hate it.” I believe he literally says that he thought America was more charitable than that. As though that by doing this, should just gloss over, or fix, or remediate the flaws of the film, which obviously is a ridiculous thing to believe. I think it really speaks to this idea that disability can be used in films to cover over other problems within the film. And so without the crutch of disability, all of the problems were laid bare and it just couldn’t survive.

Erika:

Ooh, that is, yep. That pretty much captures it. Yep. And, maybe it didn’t make the money that they wanted to make, but maybe it really had more of an impact than they could have foreseen.

Jeff:

I would argue this film should be shown in schools that want to teach directors how to do disability. And that’s a shocking thing.

Erika:

Right. Once again, this is not to be shown for how to make a film or how to be successful.

Jeff:

No.

Erika:

Or how to win awards.

Jeff:

No.

Erika:

But it is absolutely a film that should be shown to teach people how to do disability right in a movie.

Jeff:

It’s painful to admit.

Erika:

It’s painful, but it’s just so simple. I think what we see in this film is literally what everyone is asking for all the time, can you please just cast a disabled actor in a disabled role? Can you even consider casting a disabled actor in a non-disabled role? Yep, it is going to cost more because you know what? Living with disability does cost more.

Jeff:

I think that’s another thing that really resonated with me in the commentary of this film was the way that they talked about… They acknowledged outright that they had to do things differently when they were filming with this child who uses a wheelchair. They had to find a house that was accessible for the child to actually be able to get into to do the filming. But what was great about the way he talked about it was it wasn’t like a oh geez, we had all these problems and barriers and burdens.

Jeff:

It wasn’t that at all. He literally said, he was like, “That was actually the fun part, was that we had all these problem, and we had to find solutions for it.” That I think is like exactly the mindset that you have to go into. And now maybe this commentary is recorded decades after the film was done, maybe in remembering it, if you remember it is more fun than it was at the time, but I think that’s the mindset you should be you going in with. So other than the representation piece of it, was there anything that you enjoyed about the movie, Erika?

Erika:

Hmm.

Jeff:

I know that’s a tough question.

Erika:

That is a tough question. I think I did enjoy some of what we have been able to read into the immigration metaphor. There’s some interesting gender stuff around the aliens too. It’s funny to see how we imagine aliens, what do we imagine that they’re going to look like, and a very clear projection of some heteronormative stuff onto these aliens that are… They’re sexless. I think the adult and child male and female bodies, the bodies are the same. I think the only real difference we see are the males have two bumps on their head and the females have four. I won’t say it’s something I liked. I think for me it felt like a bit of a missed opportunity, certainly a product of its time, but it got me thinking, seeing these sexless bodies got me thinking if we were thinking here more about gender than about disability and immigration, I think we could see something cool here in a more sci-fi realm or in an alien movie.

Jeff:

I love the fact that these aliens are basically like a Frankenstein’s monster of sex organs that have just been cobbled together, and yet are completely desexualized. These aliens are like nipples, boobs and butts everywhere. If you look at this thing, their elbows, their joints look like boobs and mammary-ish. They’ve got these head nipples, they’ve got booties on the back of their heads. Mac, I’m not going to say that he was dummy thick, but I will say, Mac had a little bit of a booty. He had a shapely little bum in a way that I think clocks as cute, like a baby bum situation. But these aliens, if you look at them, these are sex organs that have been compiled together with these giant eyes and these weird little butthole mouths.

Erika:

I don’t know if we want to go in this direction, but I wondered, some of that you’re reading these real human body parts into these alien costumes, and maybe it’s just a coincidence, but I wondered, thinking deeper into that, is this reinforcing that idea that these are not actually other worldly, so much as they are people from another place? And just really concretizing that immigration trope that we know was actually intentional.

Jeff:

I think you’re right on.

Erika:

We did hear in the commentary that the primary focus in designing the aliens was to not rip off ET too closely.

Jeff:

Yes, I think that was the driving emphasis of this entire movie. [crosstalk 01:14:48]

Erika:

This was mirror mantra? It was on all of their mirrors, do not rip off ET too closely.

Jeff:

Close, but not too close. I think it’s time for us then to get a little trivial. What’s some trivia from this film that we discovered? So are there any repeat offenders in this film? And the only one that I… Well, okay, let me take a step back. There were a ton of people that would go on to do some amazing things, they had big careers, but there isn’t a really clear direct line to disability. I would say maybe one of he closest, one of the people involved was also involved in the film Mask, which was definitely a disability text. And the director, Stewart Raffill, also did a movie called Mannequin: On the Move. Now this is a movie about a woman who essentially is paralyzed by magic, and she becomes a mannequin. I don’t know if you would count that as a disability text, I would, she has no control of her body because of magic.

Jeff:

That’s about the extent of it. We also, as we’ve done in previous episodes, like to talk a little bit about the equipment, some equipment facts coming at you. Throughout the film, Eric, of course, is rocking a quality chair. He is in a QUICKIE manual wheelchair, but the product placement isn’t just about McDonald’s and Coke, my friends, because also in this film we see a t-shirt for QUICKIE wheelchairs, as well as, I’m pretty sure, a hat. There’s a red hat in his room. I believe it’s a QUICKIE hat. It may also be a MAGA hat. I’m not sure. I think it’s a QUICKIE hat. I don’t think they had MAGA hats back in 1988. I don’t know. I’m pretty sure Donald Trump was a Democrat still at that point. What about some production facts, Erika? Do we have any good production facts?

Erika:

Oh, we have a couple, yeah. So we had some pretty heavy hitters working in the background on this production. And one of those was the maker of the music. Do you remember the name of that person? Does it matter? You can look it up. It’s easily available online. But the individual responsible for the score for this film was also responsible for Back to the Future, which I really want to give Jeff full credit here, because when we watched this film before we knew who this music person was, Jeff said, “Is this the Back to the Future music?” So wow. Nailed it. Absolutely. You might also find continuity into Predator or The Avengers, because our music maker for this film, the score guy, do we call him?

Jeff:

Yeah, sure.

Erika:

Okay. The score guy also worked on these absolute real success films. I do have some questions. There were moments where the music had me feeling like I was actually watching ET. So I think they may have forgotten to put the memo on his mirror.

Jeff:

There was some overlap, for sure.

Erika:

Yes. Another fun one we had, our director is a known animal wrangler. So working on films, wrangling animals in a way that I wouldn’t even understand what that meant were it not for two stellar animal wrangling scenes in Mac and Me. The first of which is a scene in which a pack of dogs, wild dogs, but not wild dogs. Very much like…

Jeff:

They’re neighborhood dogs.

Erika:

Somehow, 50 or so, would you say, 25? I don’t know. There’s a whole bunch of dogs.

Jeff:

A lot.

Erika:

A lot of dogs are out chasing Mac as he… Is he soap boxing…?

Jeff:

Yeah, no, he’s in electric car. He’s in one of those electric Jeep car things.

Erika:

Yeah. So we have the dog chase scene. And then a very, very gratuitous wild horses scene at the end. We are in a desert shore, why is there a VW camper van hurling through the desert followed by a pack of horses? I don’t have an answer for you.

Jeff:

Because nothing says the free spirit of the American West like a VW van.

Erika:

Well, that explains the horses.

Jeff:

I’m so curious about what that was all about. So curious.

Erika:

Honestly, I think maybe you’re onto something there. Maybe someone says, “But wait, it’s a Volkswagen. We need some horses.” Or maybe the animal wrangler was like, “Guys, guys, can we just put some horses though?”

Jeff:

I got all these horses, let’s do something with all these horses.

Erika:

I know a guy…

Jeff:

I rode a horse!

 

Jeff:

So there’s obviously a lot of product placement in this film. If ET is all about Reese’s Pieces, this film is all about Coke and McDonald’s. McDonald’s of course having a strong partnership with Coke. There’s a temporary use of Skittles. Skittles is temporarily in the film. It just appears for the first half and then it’s like they forgot about it, and were just like, “Well, no more Skittles in this film.” Now all of this is put off. It’s explained or justified by this charity angle. The argument made by many of the people involved in this film is that all of these things were necessary evils, because it was all about the money. Let’s raise some money for a really good cause.

Jeff:

Now I am going to question this motive deeply and seriously. I think there are numerous instances throughout this film where if the object was to talk about Ronald McDonald House or the Ronald McDonald charity, why was it never addressed in any way? Why was there never any press to tell people why it was a good charity? Why they should donate to it? There was no actual appeal within the movie. Which is probably not a bad thing, it would’ve broken the movie a little bit. I agree. But I feel like this whole Ronald McDonald charity explanation doesn’t seem to really surface until after the movie bombs. The movie is a bomb and everyone’s critiquing how product placement it is, and then suddenly you have this narrative of oh well the producer always wanted to make a movie about the disabled person, and oh, he really liked the Ronald McDonald charity, which has nothing to do with him working as an advertiser for Ronald McDonald, of course.

Jeff:

The director in the commentary literally says that they were trying to see how they could push the envelope of product placement in this film. They were like, “How far can we go with placements before the audience is turned off?” And the answer is they went too far. They went way too far. It was literally described as being crass. And so I wonder if charity is being used here to sanitize the monstrous invasion of capital within this film and the ways in which they don’t try to make a movie, they tried to make a commercial, which also maybe explains why this movie that had a multimillion dollar budget was filmed in six weeks, because the story actually didn’t have anything to do with it. This is just purely a vehicle to sell McDonald’s, to sell Coke, to sell whatever other product they could place in it. And then it didn’t work, and now there’s this revisionist history.

Erika:

Well, as usual, you have done your research and you have used that research.

Jeff:

I don’t know. I’m just saying, but this is the part of the podcast where we get sued. But I do find it a little sus, it’s a little sussy.

Erika:

I don’t disagree with you. I think it’s potentially an answer to why didn’t we get a Ronald McDonald House scene? Why didn’t we get there if this is what this was about?

Jeff:

Absolutely.

Erika:

Surely someone would have known to tug at the heartstrings if you’re trying to get the cash. Telephones were well established at this point.

Jeff:

Oh yeah. Jerry Lewis was rolling in it by 1988. In fact, several years after this film, I would make my appearance as a poster child…for muscular dystrophy.

Erika:

So I guess this is why we have our rating system, because at the end of it all, sometimes it looks like a draw.

Jeff:

Yep. It’s hard to know. And that is why, like good social scientists and humanities professors, we turn to a statistical method in order to unearth the reality of a film. Tongue firmly placed in cheek. So here at Invalid Culture we have developed a scale in order to measure our movies. It is based on four primary questions. Marking our movies on a scale of one to five, five generally being the worst. The idea being the higher a movie scores, the worse the movie was. So let’s dive in. Question number one. On a scale of one to five, with five being the least accurate, how accurate does this film portray disability?

Erika:

I gave it a one. I think it was pretty accurate.

Jeff:

I gave it a one too.

Erika:

Woo.

Jeff:

It was shockingly accurate. Okay. Question number two. On scale of one to five, with five being the hardest, how hard was it for you to get through this film?

Erika:

I’m giving this one a three, because I’m going to be honest with you, it was reasonably hard.

Jeff:

I’m going to one up to you. I gave it a four. I found it actually quite difficult to get through this movie. I feel like I was bored. It was pretty difficult. I don’t know that I would’ve soldiered through this if I was a child. I think I might have bailed.

Erika:

Well, see that’s where I think the nostalgia factor made it easier to endure, because I think that this is actually much more tolerable for a child who cannot see the glaring problems with this film.

Jeff:

Okay. On a scale of one to five, with five being the maximum, how often did you laugh at things that were not intended to be funny?

Erika:

You know what? I gave it a three. I’m rethinking that three. I think it should be higher, but I’m just going to stick with my original rating and call it a three. I laughed a reasonable bit at things that were not supposed to be funny.

Jeff:

I also put this as a strong three. I think it’s a solid three for me as well. I definitely did not laugh at most of the things that I was supposed to laugh at. I definitely laughed a lot at the dance sequence, and not in a good way, I would argue. It was pretty unintentionally funny. And last but certainly not least, perhaps the most important, on a scale of one to five, with five being the most, how many steps back has this film put disabled people?

Erika:

So I gave this a two. And I just want to qualify and say that the film on its own, I only gave it a one. This is, by a landslide, the fairest, most accurate disability representation, in my view, that we have seen so far. But I’m giving it an extra point here because, I don’t know, this whole made a film for charity purposes, I feel like there’s something a little icky behind that. So that’s where my two came from

Jeff:

I struggled with this one, but I thought about it and I realized, particularly as we looked at the reviews of this film, no one addresses disability when talking about this film. The wheelchair is not a thing. And so I think it may be a film that put filmmaking back a century. However, I think disability, by and large, got out scot free on this one. I think we emerged unscathed as a people. And so for that reason, I am going to give it a one. So if we take all of our scores and we tally them together and we place them into our scale, we see that this film as not a terrible score, this film comes in at a regrets, I have a few. Which is our second best possible rating for a film.

Erika:

I honestly thought that it was going to squeeze in under this might be an under appreciated piece of art it, but having watched the film now a couple of times, I think it would feel wrong if it fit that category.

Jeff:

Yeah. I don’t think it’s art. Even if the disability representation is strong. I cringe at the idea of this film being used for anything in the world.

Erika:

Well, there it is. Filmmakers, movie buffs, bring it on. I hope that we will. It is my absolute goal. This podcast will not stop, I dare say, until we see a low enough ranking film that we can call it an under appreciated piece of art.

Jeff:

And goal number two, that we are able to finance Mac and Me 2, the sequel.

Erika:

Oh, yeah. Also that, for sure. I think as soon as we shut down here today, I am going to go start that GoFund me up and I think all we’d have to do is get Paul Rudd’s attention and this could happen.

[Music Interlude: “Wholesale Failure” by Days N Daze, singing “and the worst part is I know that this isn’t even close to how devastatingly bad everything is going to get” over a up tempo ukulele and horn-based folk rock]

Jeff:

And so ends another episode of Invalid Culture. Are you enjoying your time with us? Do you have a good time listening? Well, why don’t you tell your friends? Tell them to check it out. Maybe to go on to Apple Music or wherever it is you find your podcasts, give us a like, give us a comment, that would be greatly appreciated. But maybe even more important, do you know of an amazingly terrible disability film that you would like to hear us talk about? Go over to our website, invalidculture.com. Submit it to us. We would love to hear. So long, and we will see you on the other side.